Alphabeta Math
PropositionStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck pass
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

A smooth local family of extremals with prescribed endpoint exists when the endpoint momentum map has invertible derivative

Statement

Let n≥1, let J⊆R and U⊆Rn be open and nonempty, and let L:J×U×Rn→R be a smooth (C∞) fibre-full time-dependent Lagrangian chart that is hyperregular, with inverse Legendre branch v. Let t0,t1∈J, q0∈U, p0∗∈Rn, and suppose the maximal solution of Hamilton's equations

q′=Hp(t,q,p),p′=−Hq(t,q,p),H(t,q,p):=p⋅v(t,q,p)−L(t,q,v(t,q,p)),

with initial data (q(t0),p(t0))=(q0,p0∗) is defined at t1. Write E(t,p0) for the q-component at time t of the solution with data (q0,p0) at t0, and suppose that the derivative ∂p0E(t1,p0∗) is invertible (Invertible Euclidean linear maps, The total (Fréchet) derivative Df(a) as the linear first-order approximation with o(∥h∥2) remainder). Then there are open neighbourhoods J1⊆J of t1, Q1⊆U of q1:=E(t1,p0∗) and P1⊆Rn of p0∗, with t0∉J1, and a smooth map

p0:J1×Q1⟶P1,p0(t1,q1)=p0∗,

with E(t,p0(t,q))=q for all (t,q)∈J1×Q1; and, after possibly shrinking J1 and Q1 once more, the formula X(t,q,s):= the q-component at time s of the solution with data (q0,p0(t,q)) at t0 defines, for some open interval K⊆J containing t0 and J1, a C∞ map X:J1×Q1×K→U with X(t,q,t)=q, X(t,q,t0)=q0, whose curves s↦X(t,q,s) solve the Euler–Lagrange equation of L. Consequently the family X satisfies the hypotheses of The endpoint action function of a smooth family of extremals has differential dW=p dq−H dt on J1×Q1, and the resulting action function W(t,q)=∫t0tL(s,X,∂sX)ds has Wq=p and Wt=−H(t,q,p).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The smooth hyperregular chart L with inverse branch v, the Hamiltonian H, the data t0,t1,q0,p0∗, and the endpoint map E.

[F1]

Since L is C∞ and hyperregular, the inverse branch v is C∞: locally, the Legendre map is a C∞ map with invertible derivative and hence has C∞ local inverses (Nonsingular velocity Hessian is equivalent to invertibility of the Legendre derivative, hence gives a local C^1 inverse, A local inverse of a Ck regular map is Ck), and the global inverse agrees with each local inverse near the corresponding point. Hence H is C∞, and Hamilton's equations are a smooth (C∞) nonautonomous system on J×U×Rn (The Legendre map of a time-dependent Lagrangian: regularity and hyperregularity, Ck Euclidean maps are closed under componentwise algebra and composition, Ck Euclidean maps and diffeomorphisms).

[F2]

Smooth dependence on initial data (The fundamental theorem for nonautonomous smooth ODEs): for every base point of the smooth nonautonomous field XH(t,q,p)=(Hp,−Hq) there are a common time interval and a neighbourhood of initial data on which the local solution map is smooth in the initial time and initial state.

[F3]

The Euclidean inverse function theorem and its higher regularity (The Euclidean inverse function theorem, A local inverse of a Ck regular map is Ck): a C∞ map between open subsets of R1+n with invertible derivative at a point has a C∞ local inverse; the derivative of the map F(t,p0)=(t,E(t,p0)) is invertible at (t1,p0∗) if and only if ∂p0E(t1,p0∗) is invertible, by the explicit kernel computation of Nonsingular velocity Hessian is equivalent to invertibility of the Legendre derivative, hence gives a local C^1 inverse applied to the block form (10∂tE∂p0E) (The total (Fréchet) derivative Df(a) as the linear first-order approximation with o(∥h∥2) remainder, Invertible Euclidean linear maps, Rectangular matrix multiplication and the identity matrix In, including zero-sized shapes, The chain rule for total derivatives: D(g∘f)(a)=Dg(f(a))∘Df(a)).

[F4]

Translation between the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian descriptions on the inverse branch (The Hamiltonian on an inverse Legendre branch: differential, equivalence with the Euler-Lagrange equation, and the energy identity): a C1 curve (q,p) solves Hamilton's equations iff q solves the Euler–Lagrange equation of L with p=Lv(t,q,q′). Hence the smooth family constructed below consists of Euler–Lagrange extremals. Neighbourhoods are Euclidean balls (Open ball, closed ball and sphere in a metric space, Intervals of R: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length, The derivative and the Riemann integral of a vector-valued function: an intrinsic derivative and a componentwise integral, If all partial derivatives exist on a neighbourhood and are continuous at a point, then the map is totally differentiable there with Jacobian derivative).

Proof

Proof technique: construct the momentum selection by the inverse function theorem and read the solution family off the smooth flow.

1.1F1F2F3

By [F1] and [F2], the solution map of Hamilton's equations is smooth in the initial state near (q0,p0∗) on a common open solution interval K containing t0 and t1. The local conclusion is propagated along the reference solution as follows. Choose a compact time interval strictly inside its lifetime containing both times in its interior. Local smooth solution neighbourhoods from [F2] cover the compact reference trajectory. Choose around each reference time u a radius ru>0 so small that initial pairs along the reference curve for ∣s−u∣<2ru lie in its local smooth-solution domain, and that this local map evaluates solutions throughout that larger interval. The smaller intervals ∣s−u∣<ru cover the compact time segment, so finitely many suffice. A subdivision of mesh less than the minimum of these finitely many radii, with t0 inserted, has each short piece in one larger interval: its first endpoint lies in a smaller interval and every point of that piece differs from it by less than the corresponding radius. Compose the local solution maps, shrinking the initial-state neighbourhood at each of the finitely many joins so its image stays in the next domain. Uniqueness identifies the composition with the initial-value solution; the same construction backwards covers earlier times. This supplies smooth dependence on a common open interval containing the compact segment. Thus in particular the endpoint map E is defined and smooth on a neighbourhood of (t1,p0∗), and F(t,p0)=(t,E(t,p0)) is a smooth map whose derivative at (t1,p0∗) is invertible by the hypothesis and [F3].

2.1F3step 1.1

Since E(t0,p0)≡q0, its momentum derivative at t0 is zero; invertibility implies t1≠t0, so choose J1 to exclude t0. By the inverse function theorem with higher regularity [F3], there are open neighbourhoods J1∋t1, Q1∋q1 and P1∋p0∗ and a C∞ map p0:J1×Q1→P1 with p0(t1,q1)=p0∗ and F(t,p0(t,q))=(t,q), i.e. E(t,p0(t,q))=q, for all (t,q)∈J1×Q1.

3.1F2step 2.1

Define X(t,q,s) as the q-component at time s of the Hamiltonian solution with data (q0,p0(t,q)) at t0. By [F2] the local solution map is smooth in the initial state and in the evaluation time, so, after shrinking J1 and Q1 so that p0(t,q) remains in the region of smooth dependence and so that all these solutions exist on a common open interval K⊆J containing t0 and J1, the map X is C∞ on J1×Q1×K.

4.1step 2.1step 3.1F4

Properties of X: X(t,q,t0)=q0, because every solution starts at q0 at time t0; and X(t,q,t)=E(t,p0(t,q))=q by step 2.1. For each (t,q), the curve s↦(X(s),p(s)) solves Hamilton's equations with p the momentum component of the same solution, so by [F4] s↦X(t,q,s) solves the Euler–Lagrange equation of L with velocity ∂sX.

5.1step 3.1step 4.1F4∎

Steps 3.1 and 4.1 show that X satisfies the hypotheses of The endpoint action function of a smooth family of extremals has differential dW=p dq−H dt on J1×Q1; applying that theorem gives that W(t,q):=∫t0tL(s,X,∂sX)ds is C1 with Wq(t,q)=p(t,q) and Wt(t,q)=−H(t,q,p(t,q)), where p(t,q)=Lv(t,q,∂sX(t,q,t)).

Remarks

  • The proposition is a local existence statement: it produces the family on some neighbourhood of the chosen endpoint (t1,q1) from the invertibility of the endpoint momentum map. It proves neither that the family extends beyond that neighbourhood, nor that the endpoint problem is solvable for arbitrary data; failure of the invertibility hypothesis is exactly the degenerate case excluded here, and no boundary-value solvability is claimed.

  • The construction uses the Hamiltonian flow and the equivalence with the Euler–Lagrange equations on the inverse branch, so the hyperregularity of L is used both to define H globally and to translate trajectories. In the merely regular case the same argument works locally on each inverse branch.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources